Skip to main content

Unit 7 — Interdependent & Cross-Functional Flows: Managing Work Across Teams

Unit ID: FO-FND-07
Estimated Time: 120–180 minutes
Delivery Mode: Self-Guided or Catalyst-Led
Applies To: Founders, operators, managers, workflow owners, team leads
Prerequisites: Completion of Units 4–6 (Workflow, Exceptions, Data)

Unit Purpose and Role in FlowOps

Unit 7 is where FlowOps moves from contained systems to organizational reality.

Up through Unit 6, workflows have been intentionally limited:

  • Few roles
  • Clear ownership
  • Minimal dependencies

In real organizations, work rarely lives in one team. As soon as workflows cross team boundaries, complexity increases non-linearly.

This unit teaches how to design and manage interdependent flows without:

  • Losing ownership
  • Creating bottlenecks between teams
  • Turning coordination into meetings
  • Amplifying exceptions across the system

The goal is not to eliminate dependencies — it is to make them explicit, governed, and survivable.

Why Cross-Functional Flow Is Where Most Systems Break

Most organizations fail at cross-functional flow because they rely on:

  • Informal coordination
  • Personal relationships
  • Escalation by frustration

This works at small scale, then collapses.

When dependencies are unmanaged:

  • One team’s delay becomes another team’s emergency
  • Exceptions multiply downstream
  • Ownership becomes political
  • Leaders become human routers

Unit 7 replaces hero coordination with designed agreements.

1. What This Unit Solves

The Problem It Addresses

Cross-functional work often fails not because teams are incompetent, but because interfaces between teams are undefined.

Typical symptoms include:

  • “We’re waiting on them”
  • Work stuck in limbo between teams
  • Different priorities across departments
  • Repeated escalations for the same issue
  • Downstream teams compensating for upstream gaps

These are not communication problems — they are dependency design problems.

Why This Unit Comes After Data Design

Interdependent flows require:

  • Clear workflow stages
  • Defined handoffs
  • Known exception types
  • Intentional data

Without those, cross-team work becomes guesswork.

2. The Standard: What a Dependency Is (and Is Not)

What This Section Defines

This section establishes a shared definition of dependencies.

A dependency exists when:

One workflow or team cannot proceed without something from another.

A dependency is not:

  • A request
  • A favor
  • A courtesy check

Dependencies are structural facts, not interpersonal choices.

Types of Dependencies

Most cross-functional dependencies fall into these categories:

  • Input dependencies (data, approvals, materials)
  • Timing dependencies (sequencing, deadlines)
  • Capacity dependencies (shared resources)
  • Decision dependencies (authority or judgment)

Naming the dependency removes ambiguity.

3. Mapping Upstream and Downstream Relationships

Purpose of This Section

This section teaches how to visualize dependencies so they can be managed intentionally.

Upstream vs Downstream

  • Upstream teams provide inputs
  • Downstream teams consume outputs

Confusion occurs when:

  • Ownership is unclear
  • Expectations are implicit
  • Timing assumptions differ

Every cross-functional workflow must make this direction explicit.

Creating a Dependency Map

A dependency map shows:

  • Which teams are involved
  • What each team provides
  • Where handoffs occur
  • Where exceptions propagate

The goal is clarity, not detail.

4. Cross-Functional Agreements (Internal SLAs)

Why Agreements Are Required

Cross-functional flow cannot rely on goodwill alone.

This section introduces internal SLAs as operational agreements, not contractual threats.

What a Cross-Functional SLA Defines

An effective agreement specifies:

  • Inputs provided
  • Quality standards
  • Timing expectations
  • Exception handling
  • Escalation paths

Without this, teams optimize locally and break globally.

What SLAs Are NOT

They are not:

They are coordination contracts.

5. Managing Exception Amplification

Why Exceptions Get Worse Across Teams

An exception in one team often becomes:

  • Multiple exceptions downstream
  • Emergency rework
  • Schedule compression

This is called exception amplification.

Containing Exceptions at Boundaries

To prevent amplification:

  • Exceptions must be surfaced early
  • Ownership must be clear
  • Downstream teams must not absorb upstream failures silently

Exception containment protects the system.

6. Visibility Without Control

The Cross-Functional Visibility Trap

Leaders often try to solve cross-team issues by:

  • Centralizing control
  • Adding approvals
  • Increasing reporting

This slows flow and creates resentment.

The FlowOps Approach

FlowOps prioritizes:

  • Shared visibility
  • Local ownership
  • Clear escalation rules

Visibility enables coordination without micromanagement.

7. Designing Escalation Across Teams

Why Escalation Must Be Designed

Cross-team escalation should:

  • Resolve decisions
  • Protect flow
  • Prevent blame loops

Undesigned escalation becomes political.

Escalation Principles

  • Escalate issues, not people
  • Escalation resolves ownership conflicts
  • Repeated escalations trigger redesign

Escalation is a signal, not a failure.

8. Outputs of Unit 7

By the end of this unit, the organization must have:

  • A dependency map for the workflow
  • Identified upstream and downstream teams
  • Cross-functional SLAs defined
  • Exception escalation paths documented
  • Visibility rules agreed upon

Without these, scale introduces fragility.

9. Governance

Ownership

The workflow owner governs:

  • Dependency definitions
  • Cross-functional agreements
  • Escalation rules

Each team owns execution within its boundary.

Review Cadence

Review cross-functional flows:

  • When exceptions repeat
  • When volume changes
  • When team structures change

Dependencies must evolve with the organization.

10. Common Failure Modes

  • Treating dependencies as informal favors
  • Letting downstream teams absorb upstream failures
  • Over-escalating trivial issues
  • Adding control instead of clarity

Cross-functional flow fails when accountability is fuzzy.

11. Catalyst-Led Option

Catalyst may:

  • Facilitate dependency mapping
  • Normalize cross-team expectations
  • Design escalation models
  • Reduce political friction

Catalyst’s role is to make dependencies explicit and neutral.

12. Completion Criteria

Unit 7 is complete only when:

  • Dependencies are documented
  • Cross-functional agreements exist
  • Escalation paths are clear
  • Exception amplification is addressed

Do not proceed until these conditions are met.

COPY-PASTE DEPENDENCY & SLA TEMPLATE

(Word / Docs friendly)

Workflow Name: __________________________
Workflow Owner: __________________________

Upstream / Downstream Mapping

Team

Role (Upstream / Downstream)

Input / Output Provided

Timing Expectation
       

Cross-Functional Agreement (Internal SLA)

Inputs Required:

Quality / Acceptance Criteria:

Timing Expectations:

Exception Handling:

Escalation Path:

Last Reviewed: __________________________

 

Back to top